Music files: 16bit vs 24 bit

[Satanica]

7 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Who bloody cares

 

Take it as just my view

I care.

 

Never!

Edited September 27, 2019 by Satanica

[Satanica]

14 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Take it as just my view, and move on

Every single "Hi-Res" download I've obtained and I do have a few I've inspected the waveform with Audacity and every single time it has displayed information above what the 44.1kHz sample rate is capable of.

 

I look forward to you providing your bullet proof evidence as you usually do.

[davewantsmoore]

16 hours ago, was_a said:

Modern recordings of acoustic music - large-scale orchestral in particular

Yes, but not 24bit vs 16bit.

 

There's no reason not to record in a 24bit format .... but once it's all done, there's very little reason to keep it there aside from archival posterity..... because recordings which have 90dB+ of dynamic range are practically non-existent.... and even if they existed, you can't hear it in your room.

[davewantsmoore]

10 hours ago, Muon N' said:

Meh...I have never been seduced by hi res formats as the bulk seem to just be re-sampled 16/44.1.

 

I went through a stage where I re-sampled redbook to 32bit/356kHz and even 64bit float

Increasing the bit-depth like you're doing here does not (can not) change anything.... it can't add anything back.

 

OTOH changing the sampling rate, may affect how your equipment performs.

[davewantsmoore]

1 hour ago, Muon N' said:

Who bloody cares

If you're right, then I'd like to know (I'd learn something) .... If you're full of sh!t then I'd like to point that out so everyone realises to watch where they tread.

[Guest Muon N']

2 hours ago, Satanica said:

Every single "Hi-Res" download I've obtained and I do have a few I've inspected the waveform with Audacity and every single time it has displayed information above what the 44.1kHz sample rate is capable of.

 

I look forward to you providing your bullet proof evidence as you usually do.

Cool

 

I'm still not interested in hi res, if you like it! more power to you.

[Satanica]

11 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

I'm still not interested in hi res,

I wasn't trying to get you interested or let my opinion be known.

I was just bring some truth man, just some truth.

 

11 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

if you like it!

Sometimes the mastering is different/superior on the "Hi-Res" version with more dynamic range.

This is where the true gains of "Hi-Res" can be made.

I'm pretty confident you'd like it, just like me.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Satanica

[was_a]

5 hours ago, davewantsmoore said:

Yes, but not 24bit vs 16bit.

 

There's no reason not to record in a 24bit format .... but once it's all done, there's very little reason to keep it there aside from archival posterity..... because recordings which have 90dB+ of dynamic range are practically non-existent.... and even if they existed, you can't hear it in your room.

You've taken ONE factor (dynamic range) and proclaimed: Here endeth the debate! Isn't that a little simplistic?

 

Shouldn't we music lovers / hi-fi enthusiasts have open minds in an effort to find good-sounding recordings and enjoy them? 

 

Like everyone else, I have my own philosophies on playback. I prefer not to upsample or buy recordings that have been altered in this way. As opposed to modern recordings that were made in hi-res. This is my basic guide. But sometimes my guide doesn't work! Some original hi-res releases are awful. And some upsampled remasters are an improvement on a Redbook recording. 

 

My question is: Why would anyone limit themselves to one option only???

 

 

 

 

Edited September 27, 2019 by was_a

[davewantsmoore]

13 hours ago, was_a said:

Isn't that a little simplistic?

No.

13 hours ago, was_a said:

Shouldn't we music lovers / hi-fi enthusiasts have open minds

Yes.... but when you look at how 16 vs 24 bit works.... you will see what it is responsible for, and what it is not responsible for.

 

It is silly to have an "open mind" about things which we know bit-depth is not responsible for ......  it would be like having an open mind that the price of eggs could be something to do with why honey tastes sweet.

 

13 hours ago, was_a said:

in an effort to find good-sounding recordings and enjoy them? 

I'm trying to help you do that.

 

16 vs 24 bit isn't a guaranteed tell.... the reason is a 16bit format is capable of more dynamics range than your system is.

 

So... while recordings which have been left in 24bit formats, might be "good ones" ..... you cannot deduce from simply the "16-bit-ness" of a recording, that it is substandard due to the lack of bits.

13 hours ago, was_a said:

Like everyone else, I have my own philosophies on playback.

Digital audio isn't served well by philosophy.   It is engineering.

13 hours ago, was_a said:

I prefer not to upsample or buy recordings that have been altered in this way.

Upsampling is very unlikely to do anything useful in the recording and distribution parts of the music-chain....  In your playback system, upsampling might help, but it depends on your equipment.

 

13 hours ago, was_a said:

Some original hi-res releases are awful.

Sure.... if I buy my 3 year old a $200 set of coloured pencils, she still draws scribble.

13 hours ago, was_a said:

And some upsampled remasters are an improvement on a Redbook recording. 

This is the remastering, not the resampling.

 

If I drew an average portrait ... and then we got a famous artist to "fix it" (he makes it look quite nice) ..... do we think it's the $200 set of pencils that he used .... or is it his artistic skills with the pencils (?!)   

 

13 hours ago, was_a said:

My question is: Why would anyone limit themselves to one option only???

You wouldn't .... but I didn't ever suggest that.

 

I just told you that increased bit-depth isn't responsible for any of the extra quality that you've noticed.

[betty boop]

I wouldn't Stress too much 16 bit or 24 bit ! I also enjoy stuff thats 1 bit  or even analog with no bits involved..  .

 

just sit back .... enjoy the music ! 

[was_a]

...Yes. DaveWantsMoore - you're LimitingYourself2Less

[MLXXX]

8 hours ago, betty boop said:

I wouldn't Stress too much 16 bit or 24 bit ! I also enjoy stuff thats 1 bit

As betty boop would know, the "1 bit" description for the  DSD format used for SACDs is a quite different concept to the bit-depth description for linear PCM. (DSD uses delta-sigma modulation at 2.8MHz plus.)

 

3 hours ago, was_a said:

...Yes. DaveWantsMoore - you're LimitingYourself2Less

Very punny.

 

I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread, that if a person can can get hold of a 24 bit audio file and [noise-shaped] dither it down to 16 bits and compare the sound of it with the 24 bit version, they may be surprised.

 

At a usual playback gain and distance from speakers, the 16 bit version will sound exactly the same as the 24 bit version, to human ears.  You can try this exercise with the free audio editor, Audacity.

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by MLXXX

[was_a]

I always enjoy being lectured by the bits-are-bits / 16-bits-are-enough brigade on subjects like dynamic range. You 'scientists' are implying that people who buy hi-res files (like myself) aren't knowledgeable about audio engineering! It's hilarious!

 

Here's a suggestion for you disbelievers: listen to a Redbook and hi-res equivalent of a recent recording. Whether you prefer the Redbook or the hi-res, I guarantee you'll hear a 'difference' in the presentation. 

 

 

[Ittaku]

1 minute ago, was_a said:

I always enjoy being lectured by the bits-are-bits / 16-bits-are-enough brigade on subjects like dynamic range. You 'scientists' are implying that people who buy hi-res files (like myself) aren't knowledgeable about audio engineering! It's hilarious!

 

Here's a suggestion for you disbelievers: listen to a Redbook and hi-res equivalent of a recent recording. Whether you prefer the Redbook or the hi-res, I guarantee you'll hear a 'difference' in the presentation.

That's not bits are bits, as you're talking about two different masters. What MLXXX said is very different. Start with the 24 bit original, create a 16bit dithered version of it and see if it sounds different to your ears. Not even asking you to do a double blind trial. I'm just repeating what I've said earlier, but 24 bit masters tend to sound better because of the effort in making them, not because they're 24 bit. Creating high quality 16 bit versions of them is inaudibly different to me too. It's just that you are more likely to get a good master if you get a 24 bit version. It's not the 24 bits that makes it sound better. So I still get 24 bit versions for that reason alone.

[was_a]

Yes, Ittaku, I'm aware of the technical nomenclature; I'm just trying to avoid being dogmatic about it. Because this dogmatism is precisely what I'm arguing against.

 

I've compared 24-bit originals with downsampled Redbook on numerous occasions, using Izotope and several other high-quality tools. There was always a difference - soundstaging, layering, tonality. 

 

I've heard the same difference with 'professionally' downsampled files. 

 

This was all with classical and jazz productions; non-acoustic music tells us nothing.

 

NB: I am staggered that anyone with decent listening skills can't hear such differences. 

It is beyond my comprehension. 

 

Sorry if that offends anyone.

 

 

 

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by was_a

[Ittaku]

6 minutes ago, was_a said:

I've compared 24-bit originals with downsampled Redbook on numerous occasions, using Izotope and several other high-quality tools. There was always a difference - soundstaging, layering, tonality. 

 

I've heard the same difference with 'professionally' downsampled files. 

 

This was all with classical and jazz productions; non-acoustic music tells us nothing.

 

NB: I am staggered that anyone with decent listening skills can't hear such differences. 

It is beyond my comprehension. 

 

Sorry if that offends anyone.

Sorry, I must have been deaf at the time I did the comparisons, and/or my system isn't resolving enough then. Not offended at all.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Ittaku

[was_a]

I'm sure you're not deaf! And your system is wonderful - really fantastic...Great taste in products and synergy. 

 

Like I said before, I find both Redbook and hi-res satisfying. On my computer audio setup I've down-sampled a couple of terabytes of hi-res WAV to 16/44 FLAC to save space. 

 

But if I'm listening very critically - say with high-end headphones at night - I'll play the hi-res WAV version.

[MLXXX]

1 hour ago, was_a said:

I've compared 24-bit originals with downsampled Redbook

My recent post was about bit-depth only, specifically the result of noise-shaped dithering a 24 bit file to 16 bits.

 

You appear to be talking about changing the sample rate as well, as I presume the 24 bit versions you used had sample rates higher than 44.1kHz.  Was that the case?

 

Changing the sample rate would lead to a different discussion.  (There are indeed different filtering possibilities for 44.1kHz that can make an audible difference, depending on what choices are made.)

Edited September 28, 2019 by MLXXX

[Satanica]

On 28/09/2019 at 9:41 AM, betty boop said:

or even analog with no bits involved..  

Haha, good joke mate. Vinyl would never be digitally mastered now would it. 

[Guest Muon N']

Going non oversampling soon, 16 quality bits only     

 

[Satanica]

7 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Going non oversampling soon, 16 quality bits only     

 

Converting from 16 bit to 24 bit is not oversampling. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by Satanica

[Guest Muon N']

Just now, Satanica said:

Going from 16 bit to 24 bit is not oversampling. 

Thanks for the obvious, I was stating something I was doing, not entering a competition.

[Satanica]

8 minutes ago, Muon N' said:

Thanks for the obvious, I was stating something I was doing, not entering a competition.

You choose the poke emoji and then I respond and then you get shitty! 

[Guest Muon N']

Just now, Satanica said:

You choose the poke emoji and then I respond and then you get shitty! 

Not shitty, that's the issue with this type of communication, often misinterpreted motives, the poke was a joke, having fun

[MLXXX]

13 hours ago, was_a said:

I've compared 24-bit originals with downsampled Redbook on numerous occasions, using Izotope and several other high-quality tools. There was always a difference - soundstaging, layering, tonality. 

 

I've heard the same difference with 'professionally' downsampled files. 

 

This was all with classical and jazz productions; non-acoustic music tells us nothing.

 

NB: I am staggered that anyone with decent listening skills can't hear such differences. 

It is beyond my comprehension. 

If a hi-res format of itself made as clear a difference as you report then the hi-res industry would have taken over the audiophile market years ago.  Also there would be one or more published formal listening tests confirming the readily heard difference.  However these outcomes have not eventuated.

 

It appears that the best result the hi-res industry can cite is a statistical analysis from combining data from different studies.  This analysis showed a success rate of slightly over 50% in being able to distinguish hi-res from 44.1/16, and this slight success appeared to be not due to chance.  I am referring to the paper published in 2016 titled  A Meta-Analysis of High Resolution Audio Perceptual Evaluation.

 

The absence of even a single formal study demonstrating a clear ability by test subjects to distinguish hi-res from Redbook CD is notable.

 

__________

 

It appears you were trying to compare files with different sample rates.

 

Your method of testing would not have guarded against different DAC performance at a 44.1kHz sample rate.  A protocol that sidesteps that issue is as follows:

 

1. Downsample the hires file to 44.1/16 using noise shaped dither..

2. Upsample the result of 1 to the same sample rate as the hires file.

3. Compare the hires file and the twice resampled file under blind conditions.

 

Tools that could be used:

Audacity (for the downsampling, and upsampling).

Foobar2000 with ABX plug-in for automated blind testing.

 

You could use Audacity for informal comparisons by importing the two files for comparison and using the solo or mute buttons to alternate between tracks.

 

People who go to the trouble of undertaking this type of exercise may be surprised at their inability to tell any difference whatsoever.